*EP and MMM contributed equally to this manuscript Funding: this work was support-ed by the Pisupport-edmont Region, the ‘Oncology Special Project’, Compagnia di San Paolo/FIRMS, the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC), the Italian Ministry of Health and the Master's pro-gramme in Epidemiology (University
of Turin, Italy).
Manuscript received on October 26, 2010. Revised version arrived on December 22, 2010. Manuscript accepted on January 11, 2011. Correspondence: Franco Merletti, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Torino, V. Santena 7, 10126 Torino, Italy. Phone: +39.011.6334306 Fax: +39.011.6334664 E-mail: franco.merletti@unito.it Background
The aim of this study was to describe the patterns of marriage and parenthood in a cohort of childhood cancer survivors included in the Off-Therapy Registry maintained by the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology.
Design and Methods
We analyzed a cohort of 6,044 patients diagnosed with cancer between 1960 and 1998, while aged 0 to 14 years and who were 18 years old or older by December 2003. They were followed up through the regional vital statistics registers until death or the end of follow up (October 30, 2006), whichever occurred first, and their marital status and date of birth of their children were recorded. The cumulative probabilities of being married and having a first child were computed by gender and compared by tumor type within the cohort. Marriage and fertility rates (the lat-ter defined as the number of live births per woman-year) were compared with those of the Italian population of the same age, gender, area of residence and calendar period by means of the observed to expected (O/E) ratios.
Results
During the follow-up period, 4,633 (77%) subjects had not married. The marriage O/E ratios were 0.56 (95% CI: 0.51-0.61) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65-0.76) among men and women, respec-tively. Overall, 263 men had 367 liveborn children, and 473 women had 697 liveborn children. The female fertility O/E ratio was 0.57 (95% CI: 0.53-0.62) overall, and 1.08 (95% CI: 0.99-1.17) when analyses were restricted to married/cohabiting women
Conclusions
Childhood cancer survivors are less likely to marry and to have children than the general pop-ulation, confirming the life-long impact of their previous disease on their social behavior and choices. The inclusion of counseling in the strategies of management and long-term surveil-lance of childhood cancer patients could be beneficial to survivors as they approach adulthood. Key words: childhood cancer, marriage, fertility, long-term survivors, quality of life.
Citation: Pivetta E, Maule MM, Pisani P, Zugna D, Haupt R, Jankovic M, Aricò M, Casale F, Clerico A, Cordero di Montezemolo L, Kiren V, Locatelli F, Palumbo G, Pession A, Pillon M, Santoro N, Terenziani M, Valsecchi MG, Dama E, Magnani C, Merletti F and Pastore G, for the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP) Group. Marriage and parenthood among childhood cancer survivors: a report from the Italian AIEOP Off-Therapy Registry Haematologica 2011;96(5):744-751. doi:10.3324/haematol.2010.036129
©2011 Ferrata Storti Foundation. This is an open-access paper.
Marriage and parenthood among childhood cancer survivors:
a report from the Italian AIEOP Off-Therapy Registry
Emanuele Pivetta,1* Milena M. Maule,1* Paola Pisani,1Daniela Zugna,1Riccardo Haupt,2Momcilo Jankovic,3
Maurizio Aricò,4Fiorina Casale,5Anna Clerico,6Luca Cordero di Montezemolo,7Valentina Kiren,8 Franco Locatelli,9
Giovanna Palumbo,10Andrea Pession,11Marta Pillon,12Nicola Santoro,13Monica Terenziani,14
Maria Grazia Valsecchi,15Elisa Dama,1Corrado Magnani,1,16Franco Merletti1, and Guido Pastore,1
for the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP) Group
1Childhood Cancer Registry of Piedmont, Cancer Epidemiology Unit – CPO Piemonte, CeRMS, S.Giovanni Hospital and University of Turin, Turin; 2Epidemiology and Biostatistics Section, Scientific Directorate, Gaslini Institute, Genova; 3Pediatrics Department, University of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza; 4Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Meyer Hospital, Florence; 5Pediatrics Oncology Unit, Department of Pediatrics, University of Naples II, Naples; 6Pediatrics Oncology Unit, Department of Pediatrics, University La Sapienza, Rome; 7Department of Pediatrics and Childhood Sciences, University of Turin, Turin; 8Hematology/Oncology Unit, Pediatric Clinic, University of Trieste and IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste; 9Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Pavia, and Bambino Gesù Hospital, Rome; 10Division of Hematology, University La Sapienza, Rome; 11Pediatric Oncology and Hematology Unit, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna; 12Hemo/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital-University of Padua, Padua; 13Department of Biomedicine in Childhood, University of Bari, AIEOP Centre of Bari; 14Pediatric Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan; 15Centre of Biostatistics for Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Prevention, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan; 16Unit of Medical Statistics and Cancer Epidemiology, CPO Piemonte and Department of Medical Sciences, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
Introduction
Improved cancer therapies have increased life expectan-cy. This means that approximately 70% of children diag-nosed with cancer between 0 and 14 years of age are now expected to survive for at least five years from diagnosis, with a large majority of them reaching adulthood.1-5One
of the main objectives of pediatric oncologists is to offer the cured child a chance to lead a normal life. In the cur-rent social frame, marriage and reproduction are consid-ered as some of the standards of normal social behavior.6
Health care providers should, therefore, inform all former patients on the potential increased risk of having children with birth defects, and the increased risk of cancer,7 by
clarifying if and when these risks exist.6
Previous studies have considered marriage and parent-hood as important indicators of psychological adjustment and achievement of social life goals by cancer survivors.8, 9
Most retrospective cohort and case-control studies con-ducted in the US, Canada and UK found marriage rates to be lower than expected, especially among survivors of childhood central nervous system (CNS) cancer,9-14 and
reported treatment-related fertility deficits.15-19In Italy, the
only attempts to assess the experience of marriage and parenthood of childhood cancer survivors have been car-ried out in a single region situated in the North-West of the country (representing approximately 7% of the whole Italian population) using data of the Childhood Cancer Registry of Piedmont.13,20
In the present study, we used data from administrative sources and from the Italian Off-Therapy Registry (OTR),21-23 maintained by the Italian Association of
Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP), to evaluate the experience of marriage and parenthood in a large cohort of long-term childhood cancer survivors.
Design and Methods
The Italian Off-Therapy Registry
The OTR was established in 1980, when 34 Pediatric Oncology Units affiliated to AIEOP agreed to pool their databases, which have information on children diagnosed with cancer between 0 and 14 years of age who have reached completion of treatment in complete continuous remission (the off-therapy stage), regardless of subsequent disease evolution. OTR registration procedures have been described elsewhere.21-23The OTR is a hospital-based cohort collecting both demographic (gender, place and date of birth, and place of residence at diagnosis) and clinical data. Information on individual patients is periodically updated by the registry coordinating centre in Monza, Northern Italy, with a spe-cial focus on events such as relapses, new primary malignancies and vital status. OTR’s coverage of childhood cancer cases has been estimated to range between 45% for CNS tumors to 85% for lymphohematopoietic malignancies.24
This study investigated a cohort of 6,044 patients, diagnosed with cancer before 15 years of age between 1960 and 1998, who had attained a minimum age of 18 years by the end of December 2003. The minimum survival time for subjects of the cohort was, therefore, four years.
Follow-up procedures
The Cancer Epidemiology Unit of the University of Turin retrieved information on the vital and marital status of the study population from the Vital Register Offices of their towns of
resi-dence. Survivors were classified as ‘never married and never lived as married’, ‘married’ or ‘lived as married’. For married individuals, the Register Offices provided dates of marriage. Unmarried cou-ples living as married were inferred based on the composition of the household. In case of changes between two contacts with the Register Offices, cohabitation start and end dates were estimated as the mid-date between the two. Information on the number of children and their date of birth was also obtained from the Vital Register Offices.
Follow-up information for the 6,044 subjects of the study was last updated on October 30, 2006. The follow-up and classification procedures have been described in detail elsewhere.25
Statistical analyses
Within-cohort comparisons
Time-to-first marriage or cohabitation and to birth of the first child were calculated from the date of the 18thbirthday to the start
of the relationship and birth of the first liveborn child, respectively. Cumulative incidence of first marriage and birth of the first child were estimated taking into account death as a competing risk event.26 Statistical significance of differences in the cumulative incidence of marriage and birth of the first child for different tumor types was tested using the Gray’s test.27,28
Comparisons between the cohort and the general population The marriage and fertility rates in the cohort of survivors were compared to those of the general population, provided by the Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT).29-33Since no information on cohabitation in the general population was available, the marriage comparison was restricted to legal marriages. The reference mar-riage rates used to compute expected numbers were defined as the ratio between the number of marriages by persons aged x to x+1 in a specific year t divided by the number of person-years con-tributed by persons at risk of marrying (unmarried, divorced or widowed) aged x to x+1 in year t in the study area. Separate cal-culations were made for the two genders. The indicator of fertility used was the maternal age-specific fertility rate, defined as the ratio between the number of live births to mothers aged x to x+1 in calendar year t divided by the number of person-years con-tributed by women aged x to x+1 in year t in the study area. We computed the ratio between the observed (O) and the expected (E) number of marriages and live births, calculated by applying the age-, calendar period- and area-specific marriage and fertility rates of the general population to stratum-specific person-years con-tributed by the cohort. We stratified data into three macro-areas (Northern Italy, Central Italy, Southern Italy and Islands), charac-terized by different rates of marriage and fertility, and assumed the rates of the most populous region in the area as a reference (Lombardy in the North, Lazio in the Center, and Campania in the South and Islands). Because of the incomplete information provid-ed by ISTAT, marriage analyses had to be restrictprovid-ed to the period 1980-2004 (excluding approximately 3% of the total number of marriages in the survivors’ cohort). For fertility analyses, we used the fertility rates specific for each macro-area. Fertility analyses had to be restricted to the period 1979-2004 and to women, because no male fertility reference rates were available. The Breslow-Day test was used to assess the O/E ratio trends by cal-endar years of diagnosis.34
The gender ratio (M/F) in liveborn offspring was calculated and compared with the offspring gender ratio of the general popula-tion.
Statistical analyses were carried out using SAS (Release 8.2, by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and Stata 9.1 (Release 9.1, by Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA).
Results
The cohort of 6,044 eligible subjects contributed 44,161 person-years of observation. Marital status information was obtained for 5,975 subjects. At the last follow up, 5,686 (94.1%) were reported to be alive, 255 (4.2%) dead, and 103 (1.7%) lost to follow up. Table 1 shows the distri-bution of marital status of long-term childhood cancer sur-vivors by gender, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, tumor type, and vital status at the end of follow up. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (43.4%) and lymphomas (24.5%) were the largest tumor type groups.
During the period of observation, 2,745 men (81.4%) and 1,888 women (70.7%) had never married nor had started a live-in relationship; 736 (12.2%) subjects had a total of 1,064 liveborn children: 263 men (7.8%) had 367 children, and 473 (17.7%) women had 697 children.
Within-cohort comparisons
Figure 1 shows differences in the cumulative incidence of marriage for different tumor types among both men and women (Gray’s test: P=0.001 and P<0.001, respec-tively). Restricting the analysis to married or cohabiting subjects, there were differences in the cumulative
inci-dence of the first live birth for different tumor types among spouses of men (Gray’s test: P=0.026) but not among women (P=0.175) (Figure 2).
The median age at first marriage was 28.1 years: inter-quartile range (IQR): 25.6-31.0 in men and 25.1 years (IQR: 22.2-28.0) in women. For all subjects (married and unmarried), the median age at birth of the first child was 29.8 years (IQR: 27.0-33.1) for men and 26.3 years (IQR: 22.2-29.4) for women.
Comparisons between the cohort and
the general population
Table 2 shows the O/E ratios of the number of mar-riages by age and era of diagnosis for different tumor types and for the two genders. CNS tumor survivors had the lowest ratio of marriages (O/E ratio 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07-0.36 among men; 0.26 95% CI: 0.12-0.50 among women). A statistically significant decreasing trend of marriage fre-quency by calendar year of diagnosis was present for all tumor types combined in both genders, and for acute lym-phoblastic leukemia in males only.
Table 3 shows the O/E ratios of the number of live births among women by age and period of diagnosis, for different tumor types. Considering all women of the cohort (Table 3a), all tumor types showed a significant
fer-Table 1.Off-Therapy Registry 1960-1998. Marital status of long-term childhood cancer survivors by gender, age at diagnosis, period of diagnosis, tumor type and vital status.
Never married Ever married Unknown marital status Total and never lived as married or ever lived as married
N % (row) N % (row) N % (row) N % (column)
Gender Men 2745 81.4 591 17.5 38 1.1 3374 55.8 Women 1888 70.7 751 28.1 31 1.1 2670 44.2 Age at diagnosis 0-4 1805 80.8 414 18.5 15 0.7 2234 37.0 5-9 1487 74.4 488 24.4 24 1.2 1999 33.1 10-14 1341 74.0 440 24.3 30 1.7 1811 30.0 Period of diagnosis 1960-1979 899 52.9 777 45.7 24 1.4 1700 28.1 1980-1989 2436 82.6 477 16.2 37 1.3 2950 48.8 1990-1998 1298 93.1 88 6.3 8 0.6 1394 23.1 Diagnostic groups Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 1992 75.9 603 23.0 29 1.1 2624 43.4 Acute non-lymphobastic leukemia 167 76.6 49 22.5 2 0.9 218 3.6 Hodgkin’s disease 570 66.8 268 31.4 15 1.8 853 14.1 Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 475 75.9 142 22.7 9 1.4 626 10.4
Central nervous system
tumors 278 92.4 19 6.3 4 1.3 301 5.0
Sympathetic nervous
system tumors 293 80.9 67 18.5 2 0.6 362 6.0
Renal tumors 409 76.9 119 22.4 4 0.8 532 8.8
Malignant bone tumors 107 92.2 8 6.9 1 0.9 116 2.0
Soft-tissue sarcomas 248 80.3 59 19.1 2 0.7 309 5.1
Other tumor types 94 91.3 8 7.8 1 1.0 103 1.7
Vital status
Alive 4374 76.9 1307 23.0 5 0.1 5686 94.1
Dead 234 91.8 20 7.8 1 0.4 255 4.2
Unknown 25 24.3 15 14.6 63 61.2 103 1.7
tility deficit, with the lowest O/E ratio for women who had a CNS tumor (0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.43). A statistically significant decreasing trend of fertility by calendar year of diagnosis was present for CNS tumors. Yet, fertility deficits disappeared completely or lost statistical signifi-cance when the analyses were restricted to married or cohabiting women (Table 3b: O/E for all tumor types = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.99–1.17), and a statistically significant increasing trend of fertility by calendar year of diagnosis was present for several tumor types. These findings con-firm a strong association between marrying and having children in the cohort.
Figure 3 shows the cumulative incidence of marriage among childhood cancer survivors (“observed”) and in the general population (“expected”) in the period 1980-2004. Initial difference was reduced by approximately 50% between age 30 and 38 in women; a similar tendency to catch up with the general population was observed also in men, but based on small numbers and only after the age of 40.
Offspring
Overall, the liveborn offspring gender ratios (M/F) were 1.34 (95% CI: 1.16-1.53) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.14-1.40) for male and female survivors, respectively; this value is high-er than the 1.06 value obshigh-erved for the genhigh-eral Italian pop-ulation.35When analyses were restricted to the first live
birth, in order to account for the possible bias depending on the decision not to have further children after the first when he/she is of the desired gender, the offspring gender ratios only marginally changed: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.13-1.56) and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11-1.41) for male and female sur-vivors, respectively.
Discussion
We found that in Italy, childhood cancer survivors were less likely to marry and have children than the general population. These findings are in accordance with previ-ous studies in Piedmont,13,20 in the US10,14and in England
Figure 1. Off-Therapy Registry 1960-1998. Cumulative probability of mar-riage for childhood cancer survivors, by gender and tumor type. Time-to-first marriage was calculated from the date of 18thbirthday to the start of the
rela-tionship. Gray’s test: men P=0.001, women P<0.001.
Figure 2. Off-Therapy Registry 1960-1998. Cumulative probability of having a first liveborn child for childhood can-cer survivors (married or cohabitants) by gender and tumor type. Time-to-first birth was calculated from the date of 18thbirthday to the date of birth of the
first child. Gray’s test: spouses of men
P=0.026, women P=0.175.
Marriage, men
First live birth, spouses of men Lymphomas Lymphomas Lymphomas Lymphomas Leukemias Leukemias Leukemias Leukemias Other tumors Other tumors Other tumors Other tumors CNS tumors CNS tumors CNS tumors CNS tumors Marriage, women 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (years) since 18 years old
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (years) since 18 years old
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (years) since 18 years old
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (years) since 18 years old
C u m u la ti v e i n c id e n c e C u m u la ti v e i n c id e n c e 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
First live birth, married/cohabiting women
C u m u la ti v e i n c id e n c e 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 C u m u la ti v e i n c id e n c e 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
and Wales.11They confirm that, in some aspects, the social
life of these subjects retains some significant difference, or even limitations, in comparison with that of their peers.
Strengths of this study are the long recruitment period (from 1960 to 1998), the high level of completed follow up, and the low proportion of missing data (1.7% for vital status and 1.1% for marital status information). Moreover, information on vital and marital status were retrieved from the Register Offices, removing the need to contact the patients and minimizing selection and information biases that affect questionnaire data.
However, limitations have to be considered in interpret-ing our results. Detailed information on treatment, such as irradiation site and dosage and chemotherapy dosage, were not available, hampering any causal inference on the risk of treatment-induced infertility. Administrative data did not allow us to distinguish adopted children, which could result in fertility overestimation, whereas artificial fertilization should not pose any problem since all biolog-ical children (however conceived) are included in reference
statistics. On the other hand, fertility underestimation might result from the calculation of the total number of children from the current family composition, since some information would be lost for children who are deceased, or who no longer live with their parents. This underesti-mation should be negligible in our study given the young age of the offspring. Moreover, the administrative data used to assess the probability of parenthood in our cohort did not allow us to assess adverse pregnancy outcomes, miscarriages, proportion of stillbirths or prevalence of birth defects among the offspring.
CNS tumor survivors are the subset at highest risk for reduced marriage rates. This finding confirms that of other previously published reports and may depend on the wide use of radiotherapy and surgery, causing relevant handi-caps, including growth deficiency and neuro-cognitive problems.5,6,14,36
The apparent disadvantage in establishing stable social relationships and having offspring, observed in survivors of any type of childhood cancer, could be partly explained
Table 2. Off-Therapy Registry 1960-1998. Ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) number of marriages for selected tumor types in 1980-2004 and cor-responding 95% Confidence Interval (CI) by gender, age and period of diagnosis.
All tumor types Acute lymphoblastic Acute non- Hodgkin’s Non-Hodgkin’s Central Nervous Other tumor leukemia lymphobastic leukemia disease lymphoma System tumors types
WOMEN n=2584 n=1244 n=103 n=270 n=170 n=123 n=674
O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI
Age at diagnosis 0-4 0.64 0.56-0.73 0.60 0.50-0.72 0.43 0.05-1.55 0.93 0.40-1.84 1.24 0.34-3.18 0.23 0.03-0.82 0.71 0.56-0.88 5-9 0.74 0.64-0.84 0.68 0.57-0.82 0.84 0.42-1.51 0.83 0.54-1.23 1.14 0.72-1.71 0.15 0.00-0.81 0.75 0.52-1.05 10-14 0.73 0.63-0.84 0.91 0.73-1.13 0.70 0.32-1.32 0.75 0.58-0.95 0.57 0.34-0.91 0.33 0.12-0.71 0.56 0.33-0.89 Period of diagnosis 1960-1969 0.92 0.59-1.37 1.15 0.46-2.38 - - 0.41 0.09-1.21 - - 0.95 0.02-5.30 1.10 0.59-1.89 1970-1979 0.76 0.68-0.85 0.73 0.63-0.84 0.66 0.21-1.54 1.03 0.76-1.36 0.83 0.47-1.38 0.39 0.11-0.99 0.75 0.58-0.95 1980-1989 0.62 0.54-0.70 0.62 0.51-0.74 0.89 0.51-1.45 0.67 0.48-0.91 0.88 0.56-1.32 0.11 0.01-0.40 0.52 0.36-0.73 1990-1998 0.67 0.49-0.89 0.83 0.47-1.37 0.19 0.00-1.08 0.57 0.25-1.13 0.66 0.26-1.35 0.45 0.05-1.62 0.76 0.42-1.28
Test for trend P=0.015 P=0.243 P=0.449 P=0.204 P=0.671 P=0.375 P=0.114
Total 0.70 0.65-0.76 0.69 0.62-0.77 0.72 0.45-1.09 0.78 0.64-0.95 0.82 0.60-1.10 0.26 0.12-0.50 0.69 0.58-0.82
MEN n=3276 n=1309 n=109 n=542 n=434 n=169 n=713
O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI
Age at diagnosis 0-4 0.49 0.41-0.58 0.50 0.39-0.64 0.54 0.07-1.95 0.59 0.34-0.95 0.48 0.22-0.92 0.11 0.00-0.62 0.46 0.32-0.64 5-9 0.60 0.52-0.69 0.61 0.48-0.77 0.52 0.17-1.21 0.55 0.41-0.71 0.69 0.48-0.97 0.26 0.07-0.67 0.74 0.47-1.11 10-14 0.58 0.50-0.67 0.60 0.45-0.80 0.65 0.28-1.28 0.60 0.46-0.77 0.54 0.37-0.76 0.13 0.02-0.47 0.75 0.45-1.19 Period of diagnosis 1960-1969 0.73 0.49-1.04 0.90 0.47-1.57 - - 0.29 0.08-0.75 1.01 0.21-2.94 - - 0.96 0.48-1.72 1970-1979 0.61 0.54-0.69 0.62 0.52-0.74 0.68 0.27-1.40 0.68 0.55-0.84 0.57 0.39-0.80 0.22 0.07-0.52 0.61 0.44-0.83 1980-1989 0.48 0.41-0.56 0.45 0.34-0.59 0.56 0.24-1.11 0.50 0.36-0.68 0.61 0.43-0.84 0.13 0.02-0.48 0.43 0.25-0.68 1990-1998 0.36 0.19-0.61 0.40 0.08-1.18 - - 0.25 0.03-0.91 0.38 0.08-1.12 - - 0.52 0.17-1.22
Test for trend P=0.001 P=0.012 P=0.451 P=0.296 P=0.595 P=0.360 P=0.073
by a delay effect, suggested by the tendency of our cohort to catch up with the general population (Figure 3). Such a delay may also explain the observed decreasing trends of the marriage O/E ratios by calendar period of diagnosis, probably representing a lower tendency of marriage among the most recent cohorts of survivors (also much younger), rather than reflecting more serious late effects of the most recent treatments.
The marriage deficits in our study were greater than those reported in North America14and in the UK.11Such
differences cannot be entirely explained by differences in defining “ever married”. Although in the American study14
“ever married” included those living as married, in the UK,11as well as in our study, “ever married” included only
legally married couples, and yet the British marriage deficit was lower than that found in our cohort.
Our population not only had a lower probability of get-ting married but also to have children. Our estimates of
fertility deficits range from 38% for non-Hodgkin’s lym-phoma survivors to 79% for CNS tumor survivors. However, such an unfavorable comparison of fertility between our cohort and the general population is likely to be due to a much higher proportion of married women in the general population. Married women are expected to be more inclined to have children than unmarried women:37by applying the reference fertility rates to the
women of our cohort, where the marriage deficit was esti-mated to be 30%, we expect part of the observed fertility deficit to be due to the lower proportion of married women. This effect, which unfortunately we cannot eval-uate since data on the general population fertility rates are not available separately for married and unmarried women, would add to a potentially impaired reproductive capacity. We, therefore, repeated the analysis applying the reference fertility rates (from both married and unmarried women of the general Italian population) to the
sub-Table 3. Off-Therapy Registry 1960-1998. Ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) number of liveborn children for selected tumor types in 1979-2004 and corresponding 95% Confidence Interval (CI) by age and period of diagnosis among women. Analyses include (a) all women of the cohort of survivors; (b) only married or cohabitant women of the cohort of survivors.
All tumor types Acute lymphoblastic Acute non-lymphobastic Hodgkin’s Non-Hodgkin’s Central Nervous Other tumor leukemia leukemia disease lymphoma System tumors types
(a) ALL n=2589 n=1248 n=103 n=271 n=170 n=123 n=674
WOMEN O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI
Age at diagnosis 0-4 0.57 0.49-0.65 0.56 0.46-0.67 0.59 0.12-1.74 0.57 0.23-1.18 0.56 0.07-2.01 0.35 0.07-1.02 0.59 0.46-0.75 5-9 0.60 0.52-0.68 0.55 0.46-0.65 0.57 0.26-1.09 0.74 0.50-1.07 0.78 0.48-1.19 0.15 0.00-0.86 0.67 0.46-0.93 10-14 0.56 0.48-0.64 0.76 0.62-0.93 0.46 0.18-0.94 0.45 0.34-0.59 0.51 0.30-0.81 0.16 0.03-0.47 0.42 0.22-0.72 Period of diagnosis 1960-1969 0.59 0.40-0.85 0.87 0.46-1.48 - - 0.25 0.05-0.73 - - 1.14 0.14-4.12 0.55 0.28-0.96 1970-1979 0.59 0.53-0.66 0.59 0.51-0.68 0.61 0.24-1.25 0.63 0.48-0.83 0.54 0.31-0.87 0.32 0.09-0.83 0.60 0.46-0.76 1980-1989 0.54 0.47-0.62 0.57 0.46-0.69 0.58 0.30-1.01 0.45 0.30-0.64 0.70 0.42-1.09 0.06 0.00-0.35 0.60 0.42-0.83 1990-1998 0.57 0.39-0.80 0.97 0.53-1.62 0.00 0.00-0.96 0.44 0.14-1.04 0.70 0.26-1.52 0.00 0.00-1.01 0.49 0.20-1.01
Test for trend P=0.410 P=0.969 P=0.276 P=0.595 P=0.469 P=0.006 P=0.871
Total 0.57 0.53-0.62 0.60 0.54-0.67 0.53 0.32-0.82 0.53 0.42-0.64 0.62 0.45-0.85 0.21 0.08-0.43 0.59 0.49-0.70
(b) MARRIED OR COHABITANT
WOMEN n=729 n=369 n=27 n=110 n=52 n=9 n=162
O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI O/E 95% CI
Age at diagnosis 0-4 1.18 1.02-1.35 1.29 1.06-1.56 1.72 0.35-5.02 0.82 0.33-1.68 0.77 0.09-2.79 1.23 0.25-3.59 1.07 0.84-1.36 5-9 1.07 0.93-1.22 1.03 0.86-1.23 0.95 0.41-1.88 1.29 0.86-1.85 1.13 0.70-1.73 0.75 0.02-4.17 1.07 0.73-1.52 10-14 1.00 0.87-1.16 1.20 0.97-1.46 0.82 0.33-1.69 0.76 0.57-0.99 1.22 0.73-1.93 0.61 0.13-1.78 1.28 0.65-2.21 Period of diagnosis 1960-1969 0.80 0.54-1.15 1.05 0.56-1.79 - - 0.59 0.12-1.71 - - 1.14 0.14-4.12 0.66 0.34-1.16 1970-1979 0.97 0.87-1.08 1.01 0.88-1.16 1.04 0.38-2.27 0.85 0.64-1.11 0.80 0.46-1.31 0.76 0.21-1.94 1.01 0.78-1.28 1980-1989 1.30 1.12-1.49 1.43 1.16-1.73 1.05 0.54-1.83 0.88 0.59-1.27 1.36 0.82-2.12 0.72 0.02-3.99 1.69 1.14-2.41 1990-1998 2.53 1.71-3.61 4.63 2.47-7.92 0.00 0.00-2.60 2.17 0.70-5.06 3.02 1.11-6.58 0.00 0.00-13.4 1.95 0.72-4.25
Test for trend P<0.001 P<0.001 P=0.458 P=0.183 P=0.007 P=0.531 P=0.001
cohort of married women. In this way, assuming that mar-ried women are more likely to have children, the O/E ratio in our cohort would be overestimated. But, if the fertility deficit persisted, we could conclude that it may not be entirely attributable to the observed marriage deficit. The results of the analysis (Table 3b) show that the fertility deficit either disappeared completely (as for married sur-vivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for whom we find an increased fertility with respect to the general pop-ulation) or was strongly reduced and lost statistical signif-icance. In particular, the 79% fertility deficits for CNS tumor survivors decreased to a non-statistically significant 20%. This result suggests that childhood cancer survivors in Italy who were “competent” to get married (probably because of a lower residual morbidity) were as likely to have children as their healthy peers. Our results are con-sistent with US studies that found high fertility rates in married survivors.38
In this study, there was a significant excess of male off-spring that persisted also after adjusting for birth order. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies conducted in Piedmont13,20(the Piedmont cohort is
includ-ed in the present study and represents 9.7% of the OTR cohort) but has not been observed in other studies.39-44We
can speculate that a wider use of assisted reproduction treatments, which are known to influence the gender ratio of children, might explain this finding.
In conclusion, our results confirmed that young adults who survived a childhood cancer in Italy have a reduced chance of forming a family. Given the increasing propor-tion of patients who are expected to be cured and thus to become active adults in the coming years, these features should be carefully considered by childhood cancer spe-cialists engaged in the continuous process of refining treat-ment.45,46 In addition to devising more effective and less
harmful therapeutic modalities, the inclusion of counsel-ing in the strategies of management and long-term surveil-lance of childhood cancer patients could be very beneficial to survivors as they approach adulthood.
Appendix
Chairpersons of AIEOP Centers (as of 2010): Cordero di Montezemolo L (Torino), Fagioli F (Torino), Bona G (Novara), Dini G (Genova), Carnelli V (Milano), Biondi A (Milano), Zecca M (Pavia), Conter V (Bergamo), Porta F (Brescia), Fedeli F (Milano), Massimino M (Milano), Nespoli L (Varese), Roncarolo MG (Milano), Carli M (Padova), Cesaro S (Verona), Memo L (Belluno), Colleselli P (Vicenza), Battisti L (Bolzano), Tamaro P (Trieste), Mascarin M (Pordenone), Nocerino A (Udine), Izzi G (Parma), Pession A (Bologna), Paolucci P (Modena), Borgna Pignatti C (Ferrara), Vecchi V (Rimini), Abate ME (Bologna), Aricò M (Firenze), Acquaviva A (Siena), Favre C (Pisa), Aversa F (Perugia), Pierani P (Ancona), Felici L (Pesaro), Visani G (Pesaro), Fioritoni G (Pescara), Foa R. (Roma), Riccardi R (Roma), Frega G (Roma), Clerico A (Roma), Locatelli F (Roma), Casale F (Napoli), Poggi V (Napoli), Amendola G (Nocera Inferiore), Filosa A (Napoli), Ladogana S (San Giovanni Rotondo), Presta G (Tricase), Pozzi S (Lecce), De Mattia D (Bari), Consarino C (Catanzaro), Nobile F (Reggio Calabria), Sperlì D (Cosenza), D'Angelo P (Palermo), Marino S (Catania), Gallisai D (Sassari), Targhetta R (Cagliari).
Authorship and Disclosures
The information provided by the authors about contributions from persons listed as authors and in acknowledgments is avail-able with the full text of this paper at www.haematologica.org.
Financial and other disclosures provided by the authors using the ICMJE (www.icmje.org) Uniform Format for Disclosure of Competing Interests are also available at www.haematologica.org.
Figure 3. Off-Therapy Registry 1960-1998. Cumulative incidence (CI) of marriage in childhood cancer survivors (observed) and in the general population (expected) by gender in 1980-2004, with 95% confidence limits. 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age C u m u la ti v e i n c id e n c e
Observed CI for men Observed CI for women Expected CI for men Expected CI for women 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
References
1. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, et al, eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2007. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2010.
2. Eden TOB, Barr RD, Bleyer A, Whiteson M. Cancer and the adolescent. Chapter 13, pp.133-149. 2 ed. London: BMJ Books, 2005.
3. Haupt R, Spinetta JJ, Ban I, Barr RD, Beck JD, Byrne J, et al. Long term survivors of childhood cancer: cure and care. The Erice statement. Eur J Cancer 2007;43(12):1778-80.
4. Magnani C, Pastore G, Coebergh JW, Viscomi S, Spix C, Steliarova-Foucher E. Trends in survival after childhood cancer in Europe, 1978–1997: Report from the Automated Childhood Cancer Information System project (ACCIS). Eur J Cancer 2006;42(13):1981-2005.
5. Pession A, Dama E, Rondelli R, Magnani C, De Rosa M, Locatelli F, et al. Survival of children with cancer in Italy, 1989-98. A report from the hospital based registry of the Italian Association of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology (AIEOP). Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(9):1282-9.
6. Schover LR. Rates of postcancer parent-hood. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(3):321-2. 7. Schover LR, Rybicki LA, Martin BA,
Bringelsen KA. Having children after can-cer: A pilot survey of survivors’ attitudes and experiences. Cancer. 1999;86(4):697-709.
8. Apajasalo M, Sintonen H, Siimes MA, Hovi L, Holmberg C, Boyd H, et al. Health-relat-ed quality of life of adults surviving malig-nancies in childhood. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A(8):1354-8.
9. Feeny D, Furlong W, Mulhern RK, Barr RD, Hudson M. A framework for assessing health-related quality of life among chil-dren with cancer. Int J Cancer 1999;Suppl 12:2-9.
10. Byrne J, Fears TR, Steinhorn SC, Mulvihill JJ, Connelly RR, Austin DF, et al. Marriage and divorce after childhood and adolescent
cancer. JAMA. 1989;262(19):2693-9. 11. Frobisher C, Lancashire ER, Winter DL,
Jenkinson HC, Hawkins MM, Study BCCS. Long-term population-based marriages rates among adult survivors of childhood cancer in Britain. Int J Cancer. 2007;121(4): 846-55.
12. Mostow EN, Byrne J, Connelly RR, Mulvihill JJ. Quality of life in long-term sur-vivors of CNS tumors of childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9(4):592-9. 13. Pastore G, Magnani C, Mosso ML, Viscomi
S, Terracini B, Merletti F. Marriage and off-spring in adult long-term survivors of child-hood cancer: a study from the childchild-hood Cancer Registry of the Piedmont region, Italy. Ital J Pediatr. 2002;28:121-7. 14. Rauck AM, Green DM, Yasui Y, Mertens A,
Robison LL. Marriage in the survivors of childhood cancer: a preliminary description from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1999;33(1):60-3. 15. Byrne J, Fears TR, Mills JL, Zeltzer LK, Sklar
C, Meadows AT, et al. Fertility of long-term male survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnosed during childhood. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2004;42(4):364-72. 16. Byrne J, Mulvihill JJ, Myers MH, Connelly
RR, Naughton MD, Krauss MR, et al. Effects of treatment on fertility in long-term survivors of childhood or adolescent can-cer. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(21):1315-21. 17. Chiarelli AM, Marrett LD, Darlington G.
Early menopause and infertility in females after treatment for childhood cancer diag-nosed in 1964–1988 in Ontario, Canada. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;150(3):245-54. 18. Curry HL, Parkes SE, Powell JE, Mann JR.
Caring for survivors of childhood cancers: the size of the problem. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(4):501-8.
19. Sklar CA, Mertens AC, Mitby P, Whitton J, Stovall M, Kasper C, et al. Premature menopause in survivors of childhood can-cer: a report from the childhood cancer sur-vivor study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98 (13):890-6.
20. Dama E, Maule MM, Mosso ML, Alessi D, Ghisleni M, Pivetta E, et al. Life after child-hood cancer: marriage and offspring in adult long-term survivors. A Population-Based Study in Piedmont Region, Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2009;18(6):425-30. 21. Pastore G, Zurlo MG, Acquaviva A,
Calculli G, Castello M, Ceci A, et al. Health status of young children with cancer fol-lowing discontinuation of therapy. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1987;15(1):1-6.
22. Haupt R, Valsecchi MG, Silvestri D, De Lorenzo P, Napoli S, Masera G, et al. Early
and late deaths after elective end of thera-pies for childhood cancer in Italy. Int J Cancer. 2000;86(3):393-8.
23. Zurlo MG, Pastore G, Masera G, Terracini B, Burgio R, Ceci A. Italian registry of patients off therapy after childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Results after first phase of data collection. Cancer 1986;57(5): 1052-5.
24. Dama E, Rondelli R, De Rosa M, Aricò M, Carli M, Fossati Bellani F, et al. Patterns of domestic migrations and access to child-hood cancer care centres in Italy: A report from the hospital based registry of the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP). Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44(15):2101-5.
25. Dama E, Pastore G, Mosso ML, Maule MM, Zuccolo L, Magnani C, et al. Time trends and prognostic factors for survival from childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Registry of Piedmont (Italy). Eur J Pediatr. 2006;165(4):240-9. 26. Gooley TA, Leisenring W, Crowley J, Storer
BE. Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new represen-tations of old estimators. Stat Med. 1999;18(6):695-706.
27. Kalbfeisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980.
28. Gray RJ. A Class of K-Sample Tests for Comparing the Cumulative Incidence of a Competing Risk. The Annals of Statistics. 1988;16(3):1141-54.
29. ISTAT. Tavole di Fecondità della popo-lazione italiana per regione di residenza 1954-2004. Available from URL: http://demo.istat.it/. Roma: National Institute of Statistics eds.
30. ISTAT. Popolazione residente per sesso, età e regione. Anni 1979-2003. Roma National Institute of Statistics eds.
31. ISTAT. Popolazione residente per sesso, età e regione.- Anno 2004. Available from URL: http://demo.istat.it/. Roma: National Institute of Statistics eds.
32. ISTAT. Matrimoni per classe di età degli sposi, regione e rito di celebrazione 1979-2003. Roma National Institute of Statistics eds.
33. ISTAT. Matrimoni per classe di età degli sposi, regione e rito di celebrazione – Anno 2004. Available from URL: http://demo.istat.it/. Roma: National Institute of Statistics eds.
34. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II - the design and analysis of cohort studies. IARC Sci Publ 82, 1987.
35. ISTAT. Rilevazione degli iscritti in anagrafe per nascita - Anno 2004. Available from URL: http://demo.istat.it/. Rome: National Institute of Statistics eds.
36. Gurney JG, Krull KR, Kadan-Lottick N, Nicholson HS, Nathan PC, Zebrack B, et al. Social outcomes in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(14):2390-5.
37. Naldini M. Sociologia della famiglia. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001.
38. Green DM, Kawashima T, Stovall M, Leisenring W, Sklar C, Mertens A, et al. Fertility of female survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(16): 2677-85.
39. Byrne J, Rasmussen SA, Steinhorn SC, Connelly RR, Myers MH, Lynch CF, et al. Genetic disease in offspring of long-term survivors of childhood and adolescent can-cer. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62(1):45-52. 40. Green DM, Whitton JA, Stovall M, Mertens
AC, Donaldson SS, Ruymann FB, et al. Pregnancy outcome of partners of male sur-vivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(4):716-21.
41. Hawkins MM. Is there evidence of a thera-py-related increase in germ cell mutation among childhood cancer survivors? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991;83(22):1643-50. 42. Nagarajan R, Robison LL. Pregnancy
out-comes in survivors of childhood cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005(34):72-6. 43. Reulen RC, Zeegers MP, Lancashire ER,
Winter DL, Hawkins MM. Offspring sex ratio and gonadal irradiation in the British Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(9):1439-41.
44. Winther JF, Boice JD Jr, Thomsen BL, Schull WJ, Stovall M, Olsen JH. Sex ratio among offspring of childhood cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(3):382-7.
45. Pui CH, Campana D, Pei D, Bowman WP, Sandlund JT, Kaste SC, et al. Treating child-hood acute lymphoblastic leukemia with-out cranial irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(26):2730-41.
46. Conter V, Aricò M, Valsecchi MG, Rizzari C, Testi AM, Messina C, et al. Extended intrathecal methotrexate may replace cra-nial irradiation for prevention of CNS relapse in children with intermediate-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster-based intensive chemotherapy. The Associazione Italiana di Ematologia ed Oncologia Pediatrica. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(10):2497-502.
